using guns to fight tyranny is like eating dunkin donuts to lose weight (see I stopped drinking coke).

i read on another post that machine guns are considered ordinance and so are not covered by the 2a. If guns were seriously intended to protect liberty, the good (sic), righteous citizens better start getting more powerful weapons. Nothing they have in their greatly large arsenals can stand up to ordinance and the other advanced tech the military has.

the argument is really more about using guns to fight against other people - especially to keep the minorities in check. Except, the minorities will also get the guns so that will not work.

In before the lock to kick and recommend.

Everything is the victim's fault in their eyes. In every case the victim was to blame because they 'weren't armed', or "didn't follow basic gun safety", etc, etc. And of course there is the small issue of ineffectiveness...

take out some of theirs first!" when he's asked how he'll take on the might of the U.S. military, I always mention that he likely won't even see the drone coming. They never have a reply for that.

IF all the tanks the US owns (8,848) were in the United States (they're not, in fact a large number of them are in other countries at the moment), and ALL of them were 100% mission-capable at any given moment (there's a laugh) each tank would have to cover over 430 square miles.

8,848 tanks x 3,805,927 square miles (area of the US) = 430.14 square miles per tank

Tanks need fuel. Have you ever contemplated how far a tank can go on a tank of fuel (300+ miles)? How many military bases in the United States have tanks, and how far apart are they?

Tanks need ammunition. How many rounds can a tank carry before it needs to be replenished?

Tanks need crews. How many tank crews are going to support a government that is murdering its own citizens? That makes the question will the tank crews be battling each other, or the US Citizens you consider to be "bad guys"?

Apply that same line of thinking to each piece of military hardware you think will be patrolling the streets.

How about supply lines? You're gonna need trains, and trucks. How many drivers will support a government that is murdering its own citizens, and of those, how many will KEEP delivering hardware, ammo, and fuel when they start seeing truckers hanging from overpasses next to their burning trucks? Think anyone's going to mess with the rail system? Nah, right?

That "little old AR-15"? It's gonna be a bad mammah jammah when it's being used to kill the families of the truck drivers, train drivers, tank crews, pilots, and anyone remotely involved with using military might against US Citizens. Trust me... when the government starts firing on its own citizens, all bets are off, and loyalty means jack shit. Like General Patton said (paraphrasing): No one ever won a war by dying for their country. Wars are won by making that OTHER mother fucker die.

How about the next time you post a picture of a tank thinking it's going to go down the middle of your street and keep order; you consider that one single Chinese guy without a gun rendered a whole column of Chinese tanks impotent. Also consider that best estimates are that one in three Americans own a gun of some kind.

Nice tank by the way... but without fuel or ammo it's really nothing more than a tomb for whoever's in it.

...these morons who think they are going to have to take on the government in a street to street battle are also the same morons who insist we spend more on the military than we do now and want to be sure we have the most high-tech and up to date weapons.

I guess they don't think that the current weaponry will be much of a challenge.

signifying their support for the very government's military that they're arming themselves against. The cognitive dissonance and irony is epic.

It would be nice if they would be honest for sixty seconds and admit that they are fearful, insecure, and simply like things that go "boom."

...that in a genuinely plausible scenario of insurrection (and damn few are plausible), an intact US military won't be part of the scenario. It's reasonable to assume that in a situation grave enough to produce widespread, violent resistance to government, members of the military would fall out on either side in proportions roughly equal to those of the general population. Military training and discipline, as practiced in the US, doesn't produce automatons.

A fractured military not only means trained soldiers fighting on both sides, it also means that many advanced weapons systems won't be in the picture for long. Fractured militaries don't maintain logistics chains. Without smoothly-functioning logistics, complex weapons and communications systems don't stay operational. And without such systems, a modern military's advantage over irregulars is vastly lessened.

Fortunately, these scenarios are terribly unlikely.

The upshot: a relative handful of yahoos heading into the woods to be "rebels" are pretty much fucked. An actual widespread insurrection? Another matter entirely...but an absolute nightmare scenario for our society.

I always wonder who it is making statements about taking on the US military. I've never seen someone actually make that statement, but I've seen a lot say someone made it.

I rather think, that nobody who had any interest in insurrection would even try that. Instead, I believe that it would be the decision makers and the supply chain that these hypothetical people would go after. Asymmetrical warfare, against much of which, modern military does not match well with in countries like Iraq and the like, let alone in the US in a hypothetical.

You think the Military will be ordered to fire on Americans? How long do you think any politician, or Officer, who gave the order to shoot would last?

I remember a discussion we had among my fellow pilots that if we were ordered to fire on citizens, would we?
To a man, the answer, among pilots, ground crews, officers was a resounding NO.

I have no reason to believe that has changed.

Yay Empire!

to it's ultimate conclusion, the only thing that will keep you safe from government tyranny is to have a nuclear bomb. Those jack-booted thugs will think twice before invading your home if they know you can turn a few square miles into a radioactive blast zone, right?

But what if you aren't at home? In that case you'll need a nuclear bomb vest! Maybe it will "only" level a few blocks, but that should be sufficient to keep Obama's minions off your ass. And to be extra secure, for a few dollars more, you can get one of those "I have to keep my finger depressed on the button" triggers, in case you're dead before hitting the ground.

We call this the Individual M.A.D. doctrine, or "iMAD" for short. Mutual Assured Destruction is the only way we can keep everybody safe!

Brought to you by the NRA and the Military Industrial Complex, providing ultimate security/absolute insanity to the world since the Bikini Atoll

Even bernie sanders has to be careful in what he says. The democratic party has been decimated over the gun control issue for years. In a very few dark blue states you may not be defeated but elsewhere look at the record. Gun control is secretly aimed at minority populations in big cities not white rednecks. Only in the area of mentally ill getting guns do I see some progress could be made. As for Mrs. Clinton she knows the gun nuts won't vote for her anyway so she can come out for gun control.

he who wants all gets nothing. only democrats can prevent getting nothing.

on guns. I think the regulars in the Gungeon have done so as well. We are not extremists, and most I suspect are to the left of Hillary.

Rec

In college in the early 70s, and some hippies would actually talk about how there was a real chance of a 'revolution' to overthrow the government. I was a downer in pointing out the reality of the fact that we had Molotov cocktails and rocks, and they had a freaking army and police force.
Same logic applies to the ammosexuals (someone who gets aroused by guns and ammo) and their contention that their arsenals are for the purpose of one day fighting a repressive US regime.

This is so true, it's reality! GD is where it should be discussed.

(cross-posted in GCRA in case this gets locked in GD)

without the gun crazies drowning out any attempts at rational discourse.

...say we pass gun control. We pass more background checks, close loopholes, and put some limits on magazine size.

What happens when we have another mass shooting? Do we call for more and more control? Are we trying to destroy the right to bear arms drip by drip? Will we keep going until we have UK-style gun bans?

This is a reason a lot of people are against ANY gun control. They are afraid of the slippery slope. Once you give up a right to the government, you never get it back.

You wont get a direct answer, but look around at what some folks post.

You'll see a lot of 'its a good start' from the usual suspects, and they never say when or where it will stop.

They kill people everyday.

If you have a gun for defense or to intervene as a hero you are faced with a horrible situation most people don't really seem to think through. Namely, if you use that gun there's a damn fine chance you'll kill someone. That's a nightmare you don't want. Even a deserving shit stain will haunt your days until you're dead. A fist fight you can regret and maybe make amends. However, if you take a life, that shit is real.

I get the hypothetical if you're spouse was being attacked and you had a gun you could deter the attack. Perhaps they have a gun too and you get a gunfighter's chance - if you win you'll be grateful and cursed in an instant.

So to boil it all down we should disarm. How we do that in this country I haven't a clue. Australia seemed to have pulled it off, we could at least try something. Cheers!